Mr.
Keating, I posted on earlier pages regarding the ice core records and
my contention that they do not and can not be continuous records of past
climate and are in fact the leftover segments of a much larger glacial
cycle. In your response, you stated that the ice core records were not
that important, yet you have since posted them in at least one of your
challenge responses. So I would like to officially post my submission.
You can find my theoretical calculation of past climate that shows
cooling for at least the past 70,000 years.
www.theiceageishere.blogspot.com
I
also offer proof as corroborative evidence, a sea level highstand over
the past 100,000 years, at 81,000 years ago. This evidence directly
refutes the ice core data as currently interpreted and backs up my
claim.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860.abstract

This
is an actual submission and not an attempt to hijack your blog. To be
more clear, I don't believe it is possible to disprove man-made climate
change. The average person puts out as much heat as a 100 watt
incandescent light bulb. So the mere existence of a single person
putting out that much heat over the course of their lifetime would
change the temperature of the earth. One gazillionth of one gazillionth
of one degree, perhaps. But would that not count as man-made climate
change?

What I am challenging is the assumption that humans, by
means of CO2 could significantly change the climate of the earth, and
buck the much larger climate cycle of which the ice core records only
show a small part (because they are incomplete). I will add to this that
in those sections of ice which remain, CO2 is shown to follow changes
in temperature by roughly 800 years. The ice core records alone show
that changes in CO2 are the effect of changes in temperature and not the
cause.

As to other proxies, I provided you a link to the best of
those proxies, "speleothem encrustations from coastal caves on the
island of Mallorca" to back up my claim. That proxy data matches what I
have put forward as the larger cycle, filling in the gap when the earth
was much warmer and the ice sheets were melting away.

"If
you were correct in your assertions (and I am most certainly not saying
you are) the best you could do is confuse the issue of
paleoclimatology."

No Mr. Keating, what I am pointing out is that
paleoclimatology is already deeply confused due to a single wrong
assumption that ice cores can be used as continuous records of past
climate. I am attempting to end that confusion and make sense of it all.
Isn't the point of studying past climate to better understand climate
of the present and future? Isn't that why ice cores have always been
central to this debate?

You
make several bad assumptions. We do not just get a single ice core and
be done. Thousands of ice cores are collected and compared to each other
to ensure they are consistent. That record is then compared to the
record from other proxies, such as cores from the ocean floor, lake bed
sediments, coral reef depositions, etc. All of these proxies must be
consistent with each other. In other words, we cannot have sea floor
cores say one thing and ice cores say something completely different.
Your work would have to be able to explain all of that data from
different sources that gives the same results.

But, still, what
does any of this have to do with man made climate change of today. If
you want to make the claim that past natural cycles shows this is just a
natural cycle, that claim has been made and debunked (many times,
even). You can see my posting on that issue here:

Now,
about the issue of CO2 lagging temperature increase. First, you say the
ice core data is not good, then you use it as evidence. Which is it? If
you are going to claim it isn't any good, then you can't use it as
evidence for anything. But, as it turns out, the CO2 record strongly
supports the man made global warming scenario. Something triggered an
initial temperature increase in the natural cycles of the past. As the
temperature increased, CO2 was released and that led to additional
temperature increases. But, today, the CO2 level is actually leading the
temperature increases. Something is different. The naturally occurring
trigger did not occur. Instead, we did. Our efforts were what led to
increased CO2 levels, and that led to increased temperature.

This
has all been discussed in previous submissions. If you have anything
additional to add that would provide a proof that AGW is not real, I
will consider it a new submission. But, I have already received over 50
submissions. Even if you take away the really crazy ones, just about
everything you can think of has already been submitted.

I
am well aware that there are many different proxies. But the various
ice core records don't even match each other, let alone ocean sediments
or anything else. It sounds as if you are trying to fall back on some
mythical consensus. If these proxies did match, you would be able to
answer my original question. When did the last ice age come to an end?
When did that process start? When was the "trigger" pulled as you put
it? How long did it last, and when did it end? The various ice cores
from Antarctica and Greenland show this to have started anywhere from
18,000 to 11,000 years ago, and occurred over several thousand years, or
as little as one year. There is no consensus. Richard Alley claims it
occurred over as little as 10 years. Read about it here:
http://earthsky.org/earth/richard-alley-on-abrupt-climate-change
A Danish team drilling on Greenland claims it took only one year! Read about that here:
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/ECE611464/danish-arctic-research-dates-ice-age/
Paleoclimatology
as it is today is a field of science in total chaos. Its main focus is
trying to reconcile why none of its proxy data matches. But now the
warmists want to add another level of absurdity and claim that CO2 was
somehow the cause of the earth coming out of an ice age.
The earth
did not shoot out of an ice age. It gradually warmed and gradually
cooled, and when it was warmer part of the ice sheet melted away.
Eventually it cooled enough for new ice to form over much older ice
formed at much colder temperatures, giving the illusion of a massive
spike in temperature. I have given you a link to the proxy data that
proves this, and you have responded with yet more vague answers.

So,
your argument is that a news reporter wrote an article that was wrong,
therefore climate science is not valid. Tell me something, when you need
to see a doctor about cancer are you going to ignore him because some
reporter for Newsweek wrote a story about cancer in the 1970s that was
wrong?

The truth is, climate scientist were not predicting a new
ice age. It was all a reporter, not the scientists. So, why are you
pulling this out? What point are you trying to make, other than that you
didn't do your homework?

No,
that is not my argument at all. I was merely highlighting the fact that
it cooled for several decades into the 1970s. Nobody disputes that. It
wasn't just made up by some reporter. And it was cooling over those
decades while CO2 was rising.

The idea that there is such a thing
as modern warming requires that you cherry pick your date of past
climate to compare it with. So of course you would want to use the
bottom of the Little Ice Age, or the Ice Age scare of the 1970s as your
starting point and ignore the bigger picture. It simply doesn't work if
you use the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the
1930s, or even the 1990s. Your argument falls apart and there is no such
thing as modern warming.

Your claim that the temperature is
somehow pulling away from the natural cycle is also absurd. There isn't
enough data to know what is or isn't the natural cycle. The greenhouse
theory and CO2's affect on temperature has also proven a grand failure.
Not a single climate model predicted the flat temperatures over the past
16 years. What you believe to be undeniable fact is really a failed
hypothesis.

Absolutely
false and that is a poor indicator of how much you have done your
homework. If you will check, climate scientists look at the performance
of the temperature average over the entire database. What has been found
is that the temperature record changes in accordance with known
climatic factors throughout the historical record - up to the late-1970s
when it began to diverge. This divergence continues to this day and the
global average heat index is moving contrary to what it should be doing
if natural causes were the only thing involved. There is most
definitely no cherry picking by scientists, only by deniers who choose
1998 as a starting point and try to make the case that there has been no
global warming. Try starting with 1997 or 1999 and do the same exercise
and you get an entirely different result, and that is just the surface
average without including the ocean warming.

Again, you still have not shown how any of your claims about ice cores relates to the issue of modern man-made global warming.

When
your climate scientists look at the "historical record", I can only
assume you are talking about the thermometer records covering the past
150 years that have been thoroughly tortured by James Hansen. Or is it
perhaps Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick graph, put together from
tree rings, bubble gum and spit. Or is it the ice core delusion that Al
Gore blew up to fifty feet long before he got on that lift that took him
up to the ceiling for dramatic effect. Just what historical record are
you talking about that makes you think anyone has a clue what the
climate "should" be doing?

If any of your climate scientists
actually knew what the climate "should" be doing you'd think at least
one of them might have put together a climate model that wasn't a total
failure.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

As
soon as you start saying things like that you lose all credibility.
Once again, I ask you to do some homework before you start discrediting
people and their work. As for Roy Spencer, I did my homework on him and
you can see what I found here:

Yet every climate model did fail. Can you point to a single climate model that got anything right? No. Garbage in, garbage out.

And
if you need me to explain how ice cores relate to issues of man-made
global warming, then I would ask why you have used them in your response
to challenge submissions? You clearly think they relate or you wouldn't
post them.

You
continue to prove you just won't do your homework. You really are a
denier. Anything that might contradict you preconceived conclusion just
isn't within your radar horizon. Try these to start with, then do you
own homework from there.

As
for me using ice core data, I am pretty sure the only time I refer to
ice core data is when I state that there were changes in the climate in
the past. I cannot think of anytime I have used it other than that.
There may be, but that is the only thing I can think of.

Now,
this conversation is done. You have evolved into a troll that just wants
to waste my time and take over the blog. If you have a submission that
you think proves man made global warming is not real, then fine. If you
have something relevant to the issue of global warming, that is fine.
But, I am not here to debate paleoclimatology or to do your homework.
You reject the hockey stick and cite Roy Spencer. That is enough by
itself to show you have rejected science.

Mr. Keating, you are the one who offered this "challenge". I merely responded.

Regarding
the ice core data; You wrote in response to a challenge submission
"Greenhouse Gasses", dated July 10: "Yes, there have been times in the
past where the CO2 level was higher than today, but not within the last
800,000 years." Under that you posted a graph of ice core data.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-greenhouse.html

I have directed you to the proxy data that refutes this as evidence, and explained why you cannot make such claims.

In
any case, I am now convinced that this is not and never was a real
challenge. It is akin to a religious fanatic offering up $10,000 to
anyone who can disprove the existence of God. You would have as much
luck disproving the existence of God as I or anyone would have in
disproving the existence of the Manbearpig (who's true believers now say
is hiding at the bottom of the ocean).

Mr. Keating,
as
you get closer to formulating a response to my challenge submission
“Ice Core Issues”, I would like to clarify just what I am submitting and
add a little more data as evidence. My submission is not simply an ice
core issue, but a new theory as to what is happening in our climate.

I
am not calling for the ice core records to be thrown out as evidence, I
believe they have useful data that simply has not been interpreted
correctly. In short, they are not continuous records, but the fragmented
sections of a larger ice age/glacial cycle lasting over 300,000 years.
That being the case, we would expect sea levels to reach a highstand
near the top of this cycle 80-90k years ago. That is exactly what sea
level data shows.(link provided in a previous post)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860.abstract

We
would also expect to see another sea level highstand at the top of this
cycle 400k years ago. Again, that is exactly what sea level data shows,
at +21 meters above the present level. (also a contradiction to the ice
core if read as continuous records.)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379108003144

If
you look at further data for sea level highstands, you will find they
also occur every 300k+ years, as expected. Marine Isotope Stages(MIS)
17-19 at 700kya-776kya, and MIS 31 at 1,072kya.

The comparison of
past sea level data as continuous record, and the ice core data as
non-continuous records together reveal the true cycle of past climate
being over 300,000 years with a temperature swing of +9 degrees C to -9
degrees C.

Also, if we extrapolate CO2 content from the ice core
records, which show concentrations at close to 200ppm at the bottom of
the cycle, and concentrations close to 300ppm at the “Interglacials”
which we now know to be closer to the middle of the cycle, we could
guess that CO2 levels at the top of that cycle would have been closer to
today’s 400ppm.

So the statement that “the earth has not seen
CO2 levels this high in 800,000 years” cannot be backed up with
evidence. It is more likely the earth has seen CO2 levels close to
today’s level 8 times in the last 2.5 million years, and each of those
times despite the increased level, it did not stop the earth from going
back into a glacial stage right on schedule. Thus CO2 is not driving the
climate and the theory of man-made global warming is proven false.

I
would also like to add, the closest fit shows the larger glacial/iceage
cycle to be about 327,000 years. This is interesting because the
diameter of the galaxy has been calculated to be 104,000 light years
across. Multipliying by Pi puts the circumference of our galaxy at
327,000 light years. Perhaps a better name for my submission would be
“The Galactic Climate Cycle”, since our climate is governed both by
Milankovitch insolation factors, and what I believe to be an overriding
galactic cycle.

Response:

The basic premise of this submission is that there are problems with the ice cores, therefore manmade global warming is not real. And, Mr. Iceman himself stated, " I don't believe it is possible to disprove man-made climate
change."So, this submission is already a done deal.

Let's be clear, the ice cores are very important to our study of climate science. They tell us a lot about the past and provide us with air sample from past periods that we couldn't get otherwise (or, at least, they would not be as good). Having said that, just let me say that if there were issues with the ice cores, it would be irrelevant to the issue of today's recent global warming.

But, to put this to rest, let's look at the claim that there is a problem with the ice cores.

Mr. Iceman begins by providing a link to a blog of his that purports to show a new ice age is imminent. The first issue with this claim is his statement about paleoclimatology, "which relies almost entirely on ice core data." This, of course, is simply false. Paleoclimatology relies on data from many sources, including ice cores, mud cores, coral cores, tree rings and even lake sediments. Take a look at this NOAA website here or this one here.

He then goes into making false and irrelevant statements about global warming.

The ice core record as a continuous record of past climate is, of course, based on the assumption that the ice is all there and none of it ever melted.

Why would he make such a glaringly false statement? Does he really think he is the first person to think that ice melted over the years? Does he really think that he's the first person to think that some of the ice core might be missing? Is this an example of his thought processes?

Of course scientists address these issues. What they do is to take many cores and correlate them together. They will get a series of data from one core and then, when they compare it to the other cores, they can see if there is a gap in the data. But, that isn't all. They can compare the ice core data to data obtained from other sources. Again, the data from one should match the data from the other. Gaps in the data would indicate if some of the data sample has been removed. Look at this quote from a American Geophysical Union paper on ice cores:

The chronology of the Vostok ice core is also supported by a
glaciological model. Southern Ocean temperature variations correlate
with those at Vostok. Also, because photosynthesis transmits seawater
variations to atmospheric O2, the variations in 18O of O2 in air trapped
in the Vostok ice roughly coincide with variations in 18O of seawater
reflected in the isotopic content of the forams in deep-sea sediments.
There is also a correlation between the Vostok dust concentration and
the record of mass accumulation rate in a core taken from the Indian
Ocean.

As you can see, there are many sources of data and they are all compared to each other to ensure we are not encountering exactly the kind of situation Mr. Iceman claims no one else has ever thought of.

So, Mr. Iceman bases his entire claim on the assumption that ice core data is missing, and it is missing at exactly the right times in history most convenient for his claim. In other words, without any supporting evidence and contrary to the mountain of existing evidence, Mr. Iceman claims the data that is missing is the data necessary to make his claim valid. This leads him to the following conclusion:

If
the temperature reconstruction is accurate it means the Earth was not
covered in ice 20-30,000 years ago, but in fact warmer than it is today
and cooling rapidly. The sea level was higher than it is today, not
lower. It means the Earth has been in a cooling phase for at least
50,000 years, and will probably continue for another 100,000 years.

The amount of scientific evidence that he has simply thrown out is so monumental that I can't express it. I will point you to just one of countless sites that refute this entire conclusion. This one is from the American Museum of Natural History.

Mr. Iceman also cites the work of Richard Alley, a climate scientists that has done work leading to the conclusion that the last ice age ended in just three years. This is very curious, because Dr. Alley says the last ice age ended 20,000 years ago, while Mr. Iceman claims it ended some 50,000 years ago. Also, Mr. Iceman says the next ice age is imminent, while Dr. Alley states,

There’s no danger of an ice age popping in now,” says Penn State
glaciologist Richard Alley. “I believe that most people studying this
field think that, without any human intervention,…a new ice age should
arrive 20,000 years into the future.”

So, Mr. Iceman is using Dr. Alley when it fits his theories and ignores him when it doesn't. That continues the trend he established with his data set.

So, the conclusion is that Mr. Iceman's article on his blog is scientifically invalid, a conclusion I am sure he will hotly disagree with, but you have to go where the science leads you and he didn't.

Global sea level and Earth’s climate are closely linked. Using
speleothem encrustations from coastal caves on the island of
Mallorca, we determined that western
Mediterranean relative sea level was ~1 meter above modern sea level
~81,000 years ago
during marine isotope stage (MIS) 5a. Although
our findings seemingly conflict with the eustatic sea-level curve of
far-field
sites, they corroborate an alternative view that
MIS 5a was at least as ice-free as the present, and they challenge the
prevailing
view of MIS 5 sea-level history and certain
facets of ice-age theory.

As you can see, they state their work shows the sea level on the island of Mallorca was about 1 meter higher 81,000 years ago than it is today. Note, they did not say it didn't change between now and then. Mr. Iceman is somehow making the conclusion that the change was linear and there is no evidence to support that. The sea level could have been higher and lower than that 81,000 year ago level several times and the record shows that it was.

Also, note that they said it challenges "certain facets of ice-age theory." They did not say they challenge ALL of ice age theory, as Mr. Iceman is trying to do. This is part of the normal scientific process. New details are discovered and we adjust what we understand accordingly. That does not mean we are throwing out all that we have learned. This paper does nothing to support Mr. Iceman's claims.

Part of Mr. Iceman's claim is that CO2 cannot be causing global warming because there is an 800-year lag in the temperature versus the CO2 level. This statement is almost laughably funny that I wonder if he meant it on purpose. Mr. Iceman is saying that there is an 800-year lag in the ice core data that proves CO2 cannot be causing climate change, but his entire premise is based on his claim that there are gigantic gaps in the ice core data. So, the data is missing when it is convenient for Mr. Iceman, but then it is complete when it is convenient. Hmmm!

So, what we have is a claim that the ice core record is wrong because it fits his hypotheses, but isn't supported by any scientific evidence. But, then the ice core is right when he wants to make some other claim. The little bit of scientific evidence he cited did not support his conclusions.

Mr. Iceman did not prove man made global warming is not real. But, he admitted that himself. More to the point, Mr. Iceman did nothing to show the ice core data is flawed.

HERE IS MR. ICEMAN'S COMMENT TO MY RESPONSE, WHICH I AM CONSIDERING AS AN ADDENDUM TO HIS SUBMISSION AND WILL RESPOND AT THE END.

What a cop out, Keating. You state: "The basic premise of this
submission is that there are problems with the ice cores, therefore man
made global warming is not real."
No I did not! What I said exactly was:
"So
the statement that “the earth has not seen CO2 levels this high in
800,000 years” cannot be backed up with evidence. It is more likely the
earth has seen CO2 levels close to today’s level 8 times in the last 2.5
million years, and each of those times despite the increased level, it
did not stop the earth from going back into a glacial stage right on
schedule. Thus CO2 is not driving the climate and the theory of man-made
global warming is proven false."
You never addressed my actual
challenge which is that all of the evidence available, from ice cores,
to corals reefs, to frozen mammoths proves my theory that the ice age
cycle is over over 300,000 years and not the 100,000 year section of it
that remains catalogued in the ice. The ice grows for 200,000 years and
melts for 100,000, leaving 100,000 layers behind. I can provide a
mountain of actual data, all you can do is claim consensus on the basis
of everyone being wrong for a very long time.
But let's start with
the fact that if there is a 300ky cycle during which ice grows and
melts, the corresponding sea level would reach highstands and lowstands
at predictable times (that do not match the ice core's depiction of
glacial/interglacials). Those data points line up perfectly. with
highstands at 81kya and 400kya...319,000 years apart, directly refuting
your interpretation if the ice core record and proving my theory.http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
There would also be a predictable lowstand at the 200kya mark. And again as predicted.http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
As
I pointed out repeatedly, you fall back on a consensus that does not
exist. You have an entire field of study in conflict with itself because
nobody dares question the holy measuring stick that is the ice core
record.
They cannot reconcile why sea level data and ice core data
do not match. They cannot reconcile why radiocarbon dating of coral
reefs do match sea level predictions. They cannot tell you how the
woolly mammoths died out and were found with tropical plants still in
their stomachs. And scientists are still trying to twist their data and
explain why nothing seems to fit. Here's another from just two weeks
ago: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
I've answered all of these questions and more.
Also,
you bring up Richard Alley : "So, Mr. Iceman is using Dr. Alley when it
fits his theories and ignores him when it doesn't. That continues the
trend he established with his data set."
I am not using Dr. Alley. I'm using ice core data, just not his interpretation of it. Do you even understand the difference?
Regarding
sea level 81k years ago, you said: "Mr. Iceman is somehow making the
conclusion that the change was linear and there is no evidence to
support that. The sea level could have been higher and lower than that
81,000 year ago level several times and the record shows that it was."
The title of the paper was: "Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca"
From the Dictionary of Earth Sciences: "highstand - A time during which sea levels are at their highest."
So no, it was not higher than that. Got it? Do you understand what highstand means now?
At
this point I can't tell if you are completely dishonest or just dense.
But once again it is clear that this is not and never was a real
challenge.

Second Response:

To make sure there is no confusion, Mr. Iceman stated,

"So
the statement that “the earth has not seen CO2 levels this high in
800,000 years” cannot be backed up with evidence. It is more likely the
earth has seen CO2 levels close to today’s level 8 times in the last 2.5
million years, and each of those times despite the increased level, it
did not stop the earth from going back into a glacial stage right on
schedule. Thus CO2 is not driving the climate and the theory of man-made
global warming is proven false."

The key to this claim by Mr. Iceman is that the ice core record is not continuous. As we saw above, Mr. Iceman never provided any evidence for this claim and ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows current scientific thought is very valid. What Mr. Iceman showed was ignoring the scientific record was good for his hypotheses, so that is what he did.

As you can see, today's CO2 level (that enormous spike on the right side) is far in excess of anything recorded in the last 800,000 years.

What Mr. Iceman will claim is that the ice core record is not valid, but we have already covered that. He has no scientific evidence to support that claim and the scientific evidence showing it is highly accurate is very large. So, that claim would not be valid.

Here is a plot of CO2 levels with temperature:

In this plot, today is on the left side and 800,000 years ago is on the right. You can follow the plots and see how the temperature has changed over the millenia and so has the CO2 level. The CO2 level did not initiate the warming trend. The trends were initiated by naturally occurring cycles, mostly Milankovitch cycles. However, those cycles with the resulting solar influx did not provide enough energy to cause the resulting warming. But, once the warming trend started, CO2 was released, which provided positive feedback and resulted in more warming. This also resulted in an increase in water vapor, another potent greenhouse gas. When the natural cycle came to an end and the atmosphere began to cool, the water vapor would be precipitated out and removed the CO2.

I have covered this many times on this blog and it is well documented for anyone that wants to do their homework. Here is nice little summary for starters.

So, Mr. Iceman's contention is shown to be false.

Mr. Iceman then states:

You have an entire field of study in conflict with itself because
nobody dares question the holy measuring stick that is the ice core
record.
They cannot reconcile why sea level data and ice core data
do not match. They cannot reconcile why radiocarbon dating of coral
reefs do match sea level predictions. They cannot tell you how the
woolly mammoths died out and were found with tropical plants still in
their stomachs. And scientists are still trying to twist their data and
explain why nothing seems to fit.

This is all false. The ice core record is questioned all the time and I showed that in my first response. The ice core data must correlate to the data from other sources. This is constantly being checked and nothing is ever assumed (except, apparently by Mr. Iceman who has filled his submission with assumptions). New cores of all types are being collected every year and integrated into the data base. Any discrepancy must be accounted for and the very fact that they are looking for discrepancies shows how false Mr. Iceman's claim is. So, that part of his statement is false.

Why did the woolly mammoth die out? Beats me. I'm not a biologist. But, I see nothing to suggest it is nothing more than irrelevant. Here is a posting pointing out that the mammoth in question was known to be preyed upon by scavengers before it was found. That sounds like a very likely source of contamination. By the way, the tropical plants were found in the mouth, not the stomach. Also, it is pointed out that one researcher called the plants 'tropical' but they are actually plants found in the Siberian tundra even today. Wikipedia states the plant material found in the mouth (not in the stomach) was grass. Hardly tropical.

As I said, I am not a biologist, but it seems to me Mr. Iceman once again failed the credibility test on his scientific 'evidence.'

And, actually, I did address your claim about ice age cycles. I provided you with some links showing how the last ice age was 20,000 years ago, completely debunking your claim. But, look at the temperature record I provided above. You can clearly see the ice ages (they are the low points in the graphs) and you can see that it is not a 300,000 year record. By your logic, there would be two, maybe three, low points in that graph. There is a gigantic amount of scientific evidence showing the periods of the ice ages. The only bit of evidence you presented is that it would fit your hypotheses if all of that science was invalid. Do you really expect the world to just throw out such an enormous amount of science simply because it is convenient for you?

By the way, 'highstand' does not mean the sea level was the highest level in all of history. It means it was the highest level during some period of time. So, 81,000 ago was the high sea level mark for that climatic cycle. Maybe it was the highest ever recorded (some point had to be) and maybe it wasn't. Here is a paper on the subject. Based on the graph provided in it, it is possible the 81,000 year highstand was the highest in the last 800,000 years, although it isn't really clear based on the quality of the graph. In any case, there is no relevance to that point because we know the sea level has gone up and down since then.

So, having addressed Mr. Iceman's complaints, I can still categorically state that he has failed to prove man made global warming is not real. And, I can also still state without hesitation that he has shown no evidence what ever that the ice core data is not valid.

I saw an article in Scientific American about the record low temperatures that are occurring in the southeastern United States. Alabama recorded a low temperature of 49 degrees. The low temperature in Atlanta was 59 versus a normal low of 71. That was 12 degrees lower than average. It looks to me that the mild temps will continue for a few days. Take a look at this graphic from the Climate Reanalyzer (Climate Change Institute - University of Maine). The blue areas are areas with temperatures colder than average for this date. The red areas are areas with temperatures hotter than the average for this date. You can see the big blue blob that is moving down through the middle of the country. It will work its way south and east over the weekend. We might even get some relief here in Texas. It would be very welcome seeing as how it has been over 100 degrees here every day for the about the last week.

Now, I can already hear the contrarians citing how this shows global warming is not real. Before you do, I want to point out a few things.

First, while you are looking at the blue area, don't forget to notice the big red areas, as well.Some areas are having record cool temperatures, but others are having record high temperatures at the same time.

Second, the United States represents less than 2% of the planetary surface area, and we can see that large chunks of the country are colored red in this graphic. That means substantially less than 2% of the planet is experiencing this cold spurt.

Third, look at the numbers on the bottom of the graphic. These show the temperature anomalies for different regions of the planet as of today - the difference between today's temperatures and the 1979-2000 average. You can see, with the exception of Antarctica, every region of the world is experiencing temperatures hotter than the long-range average.

So, enjoy the cool weather. I know I will (if it reaches us). It isn't often we get a treat like this at this time of the year. But, don't make the mistake of thinking this means the world isn't warming. Local weather does not equate to global climate.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

This submission is one that I received via the USPS from Robert Sammon.

At this point I would love to give you a synopsis of his submission. The problem is that I am not sure what his submission is all about. I mean that sincerely. As far as I can tell, his submission consists of saying climate scientists don't understand what the scientific method is and, therefore, all of their work is invalid. He states, "the Scientific Method places a rather simple burden on the refuting of a theory: find one counter example and the theory is disproved." By his contention, if he can find even a single data point that does not conform with his definition of global warming, then the entire 'hypothesis' is incorrect and must be thrown out. I really can't figure out anything else, so I am going to go with that. I will address some specific comments as well.

Response:

I will spare you the wait. Mr Sammons did not do anything to disprove man made global warming. If his methodology was correct, it would be possible to prove that Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Moon landings are fake, Marilyn Monroe is still alive and hiding in Bermuda with John Kennedy and anything else you would like to prove.

Mr. Sammons begins his submission with a diatribe about the scientific method and gets nearly everything he says wrong. He states that he learned the scientific method in seventh grade. I would contend, based on his statements, that his understanding of the method has not progressed since then. Although the submission is nine pages long, there is actually very little after you filter out the diatribe. But, let's look at some of it, just to be sure.

First, he states the scientific method is a "method 97% of scientists seem to be unfamiliar with given that as best I can tell, it has never played a role in discussion about the man-made global warming hypothesis." So, Mr. Sammons has established the point that he thinks scientists don't understand the scientific method while he is an authoritative expert. Bad start.

Then, he discusses the issue of "consensus" in regards to the scientific method. While he is technically correct in saying a consensus is not a requirement for the scientific method, he omits the fact that part of the scientific method is repeatability. Any time one scientist discovers something, other scientists must be able to replicate the results, or it isn't valid. He not only leaves that out, but then equates climate science to "the dome over the world that holds the heavens back, the infinite abyss of the end of the oceans, and the revolution of the Sun around the Earth." To be clear, the consensus comes about because the experiments are done over and over with the same results; new findings are consistent with old findings; new discoveries explain previously discovered facts that were not understood; etc. Without the scientific method and repeatability, there would be no consensus. Scientists don't just agree on something because they feel like it, they must be convinced, just like anyone else. Mr. Sammons didn't discuss any of that. Bad start, even worse continuation.

Next, "The most consistent fact about man-made global warming that is reported is that 97% of scientists believe it is true." False in a couple of way. It is actually 97% of climate scientists (the ones that know the most about the subject), not scientists in general. Also, you don't 'believe' in science. Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe that the Sun is a star? Science is the study and understanding of the natural laws of nature. You either understand them and accept them, or you don't. We already know Mr. Sammons doesn't do either.

Wow! We haven't even gotten through one-page of his nine-page, single-spaced, typed submission. This is going to be a long one.

Oh, wait. He then equates consensus to the faith religious clerics have in their beliefs. Wow! Offended all of the scientists and clerics at once. Quite an accomplishment. Maybe, if he had bothered to talk to any of those clerics, he would have learned that faith is not based on the scientific method and does not depend on any 'consensus.' That is the nature of religion. I have learned that it is also the nature of deniers, but it is most certainly not the way of scientists. Please, do SOME homework.

At the bottom of the first page, he teases me with the hope that he might present some kind of scientific submission when he starts out, "But back to your unfortunately pompous challenge that is going to cost you $10,000. If you really understood the Scientific Method you would not have made the challenge in the way that you did." But, it was only a tease. He then went into his dislike of Obama and how Isaac Newton didn't have a 97% consensus.

Finally, he says something that approaches a submission, "The Scientific Method places a very serious burden of proof on the transition from hypotheses to theory. And unfortunately for you monetary challenge, the Scientific Method places a rather simple burden on the refuting of a theory: find one counter example and the theory is disproved. I am quite certain that I will never see your $10,000 - such is the fate of unserious challenges. But to disprove man-made global warming theory scientifically, through the use of the Scientific Method, is a trivial exercise." (It is true he will never see my $10,000, but its because his submission is quite silly.)

OK. There it is. You would think, if it is such a 'trivial exercise' that he would get to it and earn his $10,000 (actually $30,000, including the pledge from The Young Turks). But, that isn't what he did. I tell you, I would really hate to go out drinking with this guy because he just loves to hear himself rant and rave. What he did at this point is to go into rant about some global warming issues he apparently takes exception to, without ever claiming they were examples of the 'counter example' that he states would be 'trivial' to present.

I will forgive him his next demonstration of ignorance, because so many deniers do this. He equated climate science to models. This is one of those issues I just have to keep addressing.

No, models are not climate science. They are mathematical tools we use to help us understand the real world, but they are not a replacement for all of the work that is done. The real world is not sitting around for some model to tell it what to do, it will do what it does according to the laws of physics. Models are tools, but so are thermometers, buoys, satellites, ice cores, mud cores, coral cores, tree rings, CO2 measurements, biodiversity counts, etc. There are many, many tools we use to provide us with a better understanding of what is going on in the real world. Speaking of experiments, Mr. Sammons stated, "As best I can tell, the best "climate science" can do in this regard is to write computer programs that predict future global temperatures." He demonstrates his lack of understanding on climate science with this statement. You would think that he would do at least some homework before making his submission, but I have found quite a few submissions that didn't include even the most fundamental fact checking, so he isn't all that unusual in this regard.

After nearly two pages of raving, he states that "a reasonable counter example would be to show the failure of a computer model to predict the temperature for a particular year." No, he is wrong, for the reason I already explained above. Computer models are merely mathematical tools we use. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant to the reality of man made global warming. Let's suppose AGW is real and the models get it wrong, does that mean AGW stopped being real? Let's go the other way and suppose AGW isn't real, but we make a global warming model that somehow gets the temperature right. Does that mean AGW suddenly became real when it wasn't before? The models do not change the reality and that seems to be the perception of many deniers. Models do not matter to the debate of the reality of man made global warming, although they matter a great deal as tools to help us understand it.

But, Mr. Sammons isn't done being wrong. He goes on about how he was looking for temperature data and that none of the agencies ever reported this data. He even states, "smart move, actually" about this. He states, "wouldn't you expect to be able to easily find documentation of the temperature of the Earth?" Not only would I expect it, but it is easy to find. Take a look here, Mr. Sammons - the National Climatic Data Center which is "responsible for preserving, monitoring, assessing, and providing
public access to the Nation's treasure of climate and historical weather
data and information." My guess is Mr. Sammons didn't look very hard. He stated that he would like me to send him the data for the last 30 years. Well, I just showed you where to find it. Of course, his misconception is that all he has to do is find a single data point that does not agree with the models and he has succeeded in proving AGW isn't real. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.Then, he tries the old tactic of trying to change the challenge. This tactic is clearly designed to change the subject and distract the audience that he can't do what he claims to do. He wants me to build a climate model that will accurately predict, without ever being upgraded or improved, the temperature for the next 25 years. If I can't do that then, according to him, I have failed the scientific method (note to Mr. Sammon - scientific method is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized). If I cannot do that, according to him, man made global warming is not real. Sorry, that won't work, either. The challenge is to people going around claiming they can prove man made global warming is not real. It is my challenge and you don't get to rewrite the challenge. If you would like to make your own challenge, feel free to do so.In conclusion, I will quote Mr. Sammons one more time: "Don't worry, I have no illusions that I proved (rather, disproved) anything..." We agree. Mr. Sammons, you did not prove, via the scientific method, that man made global warming is not real.

P.S. Mr. Sammons wanted some information on how temperatures are measured from space. Again, he showed that he doesn't do his homework. This information is very easy to find. Here are some examples.

Monday, July 28, 2014

I
will award, to Christopher Keating, 30,000 dollars of my own money, if
he can prove via the scientific method, that humming bird caused global
climate change is not occurring. The deadline for submission of proof
is July 31, 2014

I
could do that, but you are just trying to hijack my blog and the post.
Your challenge is very childish and doesn't prove any point. Not only
could I prove that, but I am not going around making statements,
contrary to science, that hummingbirds are responsible for climate
change and that I can prove it. If deniers don't like the challenge,
then either stop saying you can prove man made global warming is not
real, or prove that you really can prove it, as you claim. It is just
that simple.

Unlike
you, skeptics are smart enough to know that anything, including
hummingbirds, effect the climate. The effect may be so small that it
cannot be easily meausured, but there must be an effect. The wording of
your bet is a show of your cowardice because such a negative with no
specific magnitude specified is impossible to prove. And since my bet
is stated exactly like yours, you are simply blowing hot air, since you
could never prove that hummingbirds have no effect on climate.

The
real issue, which you did not include as the limiting factor of your
bet is what everyone is talking about when they talk about AGW. In
other words, is man producing a dangerous amount of CO2 based warming.
Attacking straw man "denialists" based on the straw man argument that
there is no change at all is simply you grandstanding for you
sycophants.

If climate sensitivity is 1C per CO2 doubling or
less, and given that the effect is logarithmic, then there is no reason
for concern about man made climate change. Because that would mean that
it takes 280 extra ppm for the first 1C, 560 ppm for the second 1C,
1120 for the third 1C, 2240 for the fourth 1C, etc.

At this point
in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And
unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate
danger.

Your bet is as childish and meaningless as your ideas about climate alarmism.

Response:

No, hummingbirds have no effect on man made global warming because they are within the energy system of the planet. They do not produce energy, they only transform it from a source that has stored solar energy. So, on that argument alone, we can say hummingbirds are not contributing to climate change. They are already part of the climate. Your claim that they must be changing the climate is a false one.

But, let's look at the question another way - how much energy they produce. For this exercise, let's assume that they are adding energy to the environment, not just moving it around. That, of course, is not a valid assumption because any energy they emit had to come from the environment they are in, but let's do it for the fun of it.

There is no data on hummingbird population size, but lets assume its 100 billion hummingbirds worldwide. That is an unrealistically large number, especially considering that hummingbirds are nearly exclusive to the American continents, but it will work for the purpose of our examination. These hummingbirds merely take energy in from their food and turn it into heat via their metabolic rate. This heat is radiated into the natural environment as IR radiation. Hummingbirds cannot store enough energy to survive the night at their daytime metabolic rate, so they go into tupor state and their metabolic rate drops by a factor of 100. So, we will just round it off to zero for the night and round up on the other figures. If each hummingbird radiated 1200 calories per hour, and we assume a day of 12 hours, we get 6 x 10^15 joules (100 billion birds x 1200 calories per bird per hour x 12 hours x 4.186 joules per calorie). Let's round up to 10^16 joules per day. Now, the amount of sunlight the planet absorbs every day is about 10^25 joules. That means the hummingbird energy emission is .0000001% of the total amount of daily incoming solar energy. In other words, in order to generate even one percent of the total solar energy input, there would have to be 10 million times as many hummingbirds as our unrealistically large number - 10^18 birds, or 1 quintillion birds. That would be about 6700 hummingbirds for every square meter of land area on the entire planet. We would literally be up to our armpits in hummingbirds! I mean, I love the little darlings, but there is such a thing as too much.

Still, this amount of contribution, even using inflated numbers, is way beyond out ability to detect.

So, we may safely conclude that hummingbirds do not cause global warming. In the words of the deniers - Where's my check?

I know you only made this silly bet to try and divert the challenge, but I proved the point for a reason. I wanted to show how these silly claims to try and undermine the challenge are irrelevant and are false arguments deniers make to try and get out of being held responsible for their statements.

The challenge is to people that claim global warming is not real and they can prove it. Now, what they want to do is convince people that it is not possible to 'prove a negative.' That is just another false argument. What is 'a negative'? Everything is a negative of something. I can prove the Sun is not in my backyard. That is a negative. I can prove that if a man gets his arm cut off, it will not grow back. That is negative.

Ultimately, deniers want to go around making statements they can't support and don't want to be held responsible for. That is why they don't like the challenge.

They should have thought about that before going around claiming they could prove man made global warming isn't real.

When
human beings extract and burn fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and
others, we cause/trigger the release of carbon Dioxide and other
heat-trapping “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere.

To get
going with my latest finding on this issue; on this “challenge”,
greenhouse gases undergo three main steps. To make it simple, let’s
start with step 1

Step 1:

When gases are released from
industries into the air, gases rise up. This rising of gasses occurs
because of the process buoyancy, in which indoor-to-outdoor air density
is different. Basically, at this stage, it involves greenhouse gases to
move from bodies (either from cars, industries, trains etc.) into the
atmosphere.

Step 2:

It was scientifically proven that the
more you rise above the earth surface, the cooler you become. And this
temperature almost drops at the rate of about 6.5 ˚C per km of the
increased height inside the troposphere. When these emissions get into
the atmosphere at their very top altitudes, they separate themselves in
layers. These layers are made because of density differences of the
gases and their chemical properties. For example, carbon dioxide gas
would rise up to the approximate altitude and any other carbon dioxide
coming will just combine/join that group right there. And then any other
different greenhouse gas like Nitrous oxide will form a different layer
that is either above/below that layer of carbon dioxide.

When all this is done, gases undergo a process called gas-condensation.

This
process involves when gas particles are initiated by the formation of
atomic/molecular clusters of that species within its gaseous volume.
These clusters are usually small and form more like a dust, but at a
very high altitude. When these gases form this dust like a cloud, we
currently refer it to as global warming, instead of referring to it as a
“gas cloud” because it is responsible of trapping heat between the
atmosphere and earth surface.

Step 3

In this step, the
local portion of the atmosphere on which the gas cloud was condensing
forms small particles that actually fall off from that high altitude
towards the earth surface. Too bad that it does not reach the earth
surface, but at a certain height, these particles actually combine/mix
with the surrounding air particles and forms a normal air. The gas-cloud
that was forming global warming (acting like an earth heat trapping
blanket) does no longer exist, but now it’s part of the cool fresh air
surrounding us here.

Steps are now completed.

To make it
clear, greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere precipitates out from
the atmosphere. It does not stay there for the rest of the time to
continue with the warming process. To scientifically prove this, it was
proven that there are greenhouse gases that are referred to as a”
short-lived greenhouse gases” which are the gases with a shorter
atmospheric lifetime because they precipitates fairly quickly from the
atmosphere. This is because it was proven that they do not stay there
for a long time. It’s only that none of the scientist these days
realized about the precipitation of the greenhouse gases that are
exhaled into the atmosphere by the people.

In conclusion to this,
we have known that nature itself has a way of controlling the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that after a thick cloud of
greenhouse gases that people release from their factories and other
machines is in the atmosphere, it precipitates out. Therefore, global
warming is not forever. Just for example if the day time is cloudy
enough at a specific location, the temperature increases in that region
because clouds have trapped in the heat. But after the rain, everything
becomes normal. Same applies to the effect on global warming.

Response:

There are many issues with this submission that makes it scientifically invalid. Let's start at the beginning.

Step 1:
Gases do not move from indoors to outdoors because of differences in density. Unless the structure is hermetically sealed, the air pressure inside a structure must be equal to the air pressure outside. There are many reasons why gases move from one place to another in the atmosphere and wind currents are the number one reason. Hot exhaust gases are less dense and will rise to some extent, but the winds will mix them up given some time. The layer of air we live in is called the troposphere and extends to about 15 km above the surface. This varies depending on latitude with the height being less at the poles and greater at the equator. A characteristic of the troposphere is how gases in this layer are nearly uniformly mixed by weather and winds. The density drops as you get higher, but the relative mixture stays pretty much the same. It is not until you get into the stratosphere and higher that gases begin to separate into layers.

Step 2:
Gas condensate occurs when there is a drop in pressure in a gas. It happens when the relative density of a mixture in the gas reaches a point where the principle gas cannot contain it (along the lines of 100% humidity). CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not subjected to this process in the atmosphere because it can take many years for them to be lifted to higher altitudes. The drop in pressure is, therefore, so slow as to be nearly constant pressure. Plus, even with rising CO2 levels, we are not anywhere near the saturation point of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best I can determine is that the condensate temperature for CO2 is in the minus-hundreds of degrees Celsius at atmospheric pressure. This warms up some as pressure drops, but is still somewhere around -100 degrees C even at a pressure of 10 mm (we are at 1000 mm for one standard air pressure).

So, there are no clouds of gas condensate. In fact, we know CO2 is well mixed within the atmosphere as a gas and we sample it on a routine basis, such as the station on Mauna Loa, Hawaii that gives us the Keeling Curve. We routinely survey the skies in various wavelengths and no CO2 clouds are detected. Obviously, these would be very easily detected in the IR wavelengths.

Global warming is caused when CO2 molecules absorb and then reemit IR radiation, slowing down the transit of that energy from Earth's surface to space. Clouds of water vapor act as an insulator in much the same way and provide positive feedback in this manner. They also provide negative feedback by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space.

Step 3:
There is no large scale precipitation of CO2 gas condensates as you claim. In fact, by your claim, as this condensate precipitated and became pressurized it would revert to a gaseous state and is mixed back into the atmosphere. So, even with your gas condensate cloud hypotheses, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to go up.

It is true that greenhouse gases get removed from the atmosphere, but it takes time. For CO2, we are talking centuries, possibly even several thousands of years. But, eventually, it will be removed from the atmosphere. Other gases don't last that long. They may remain in the atmosphere from a few years to a few centuries, depending on the gas. This removal occurs because the gas molecule gets washed out by the rain and absorbed somewhere, or it gets broken down by sunlight or chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

You are partly correct in your conclusion, although for the wrong reason. Nature does have a way of removing greenhouse gases and about 50% of man made emissions are removed by nature every year.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Mr
Keating you are a joke and obviously lack any scientific understanding
of the dynamics of climate change. Your $30,000 is just a gimmick to
satisfy some egotistical fantasy that you are the "Denier Slayer" and
attract people to your website. The first clue is your bizarre claim
"One of the reasons sea ice is increasing is because it is coming from
the land ice that is sliding into the ocean"

No
one can disprove CO2 warming any more than you or anyone else can prove
it. I offered you $30,000 but you duck the challenge and every piece of
scientific evidence I presented about the Antarctic. You again expose
your complete lack of knowledge by offering the hilarious defense that
warming on the peninsula "debunks the deniers claims of urban heat
island affect". You claim to teach logic????? ROTFLMAO. I am not
distracted!

Your
misdirection via another sophomoric attack on "deniers" is only an
attempt to obscure your total lack of knowledge and critical thinking
skills. Although CO2 warming should operate 24/7, the warming on the
peninsul
a varies
dramatically by location and season. That should be a hint to any
legitimate scientists that regional dynamics are in play.

On
the west side, the changing direction and intensity of the winds has
inhibited sea ice advance in the spring and promoted a greater retreat
in the fall, in contrast to the ever increasing sea ice elsewhere. Much
of the dramatic warming on the peninsula's west side is occurs only in
the winter when less ice allows more heat to ventilate. No such trend
in the summer.

All
those trends reverse on the eastern side, where identical
latitude
s experience temperatures 10 degrees colder, because sea ice is not
similarly affected by those same winds. However those winds have
shifted. Instead of going around the mountainous peninsula, the winds
are currently flowing over the mountains causing more foehn storms, that
can raise temperatures adiabatically by 20 degrees or more.
Adiabatically means "no heat is added".

These
are just other non-CO2 related dynamics that , in addition to the urban
heat effect, have driven a rise in the global average statistic. If the
global average statistic was to accurately reflect the amount of heat
accumulated due to CO2, then the dramatic warming over the peninsula
should be subtracted from the average, not added to skew the trend.

5:27 p.m., Sunday July 13

Jim Steele

I
forgot to suggest you improve your knowledge by reading some scientific
papers about the dynamics causing the peninsula's temperatures.

Reply to
Christopher Keating says, “I keep hearing deniers
say Antarctica is cooling. This is not only false, but is irrelevant”

Mr. Keating, Your persistent denigrating use of deniers, and your graph of a warming Antarctica http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...
reveals your general lack of critical scientific analyses. I’ll give
you $30,000 if you can prove CO2 is causing any of the changes in
Antarctica!

It is most
apropos that the NASA writes, “The image paints a different picture of
temperature trends in Antarctica than scientists had previously
observed.” Indeed it differs from what scientists had observed. Your map
is based on a trend that
1) Cherrypicks the time frame,
2) statistically smears warming on the peninsula across the continent
3) and then erroneously assumes the warming around the
western peninsula region is due to rising CO2.

1) Cherrypicking the Trend.

Trends since 1966 shows a cooling trend. Read Chapman, W., and
Walsh, J., (2006) A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures. Journal of Climate,
vol.
20, p. 4096-4117. They reported “Linear temperature changes calculated
using starting dates prior to 1965 are positive for land only,
ocean-only, and total area. Starting dates of 1966– 82 have negative
trends for the Antarctic land-only grid points with mixed results for
ocean-only and total area.”

Furthermore the year before his “new warming trend,” Steig
himself co-authored a paper using ice core data to show it was warmer around 1940 as seen here http://landscapesandcycles.net....

He
wrote, “This record, representative of West Antarctic surface
temperature, shows extreme positive anomalies in the 1936-45 decade that
are significant in the context of the background 20th Century warming
trend. We interpret these anomalies, previously undocumented in the
high-latitude SH, as
indicative of strong teleconnections in part driven by the major 1939-42 El Nino."

However to suggest “previ
ously unobserved warming” his next paper chose a starting point in the 50s after temperatures had plummeted.

3) Finally the warmth along the peninsula has been repeatedly documented
to
be caused when winds inhibited regional sea ice growth and allowed
greater ventilation of subsurface heat on the western peninsula in the
winter and more foehn storms causing ad
iabatic heating on the eastern side in the summer.

I suggest you spend less time hurling insults and start
reading the scientific literature to get a more well rounded perspective.

12:53 p.m., Sunday July 13

Response:

So, let me see, your submission consists of making personal attacks. Not very scientific. Nor, are they very well informed, just like your misguided opinions on global warming. I don't really hurl insults, I just point out the truth about deniers. It isn't my fault that the characteristics of deniers are not complimentary. You are a perfect example. What part of science includes all of your personal attacks? Since you have no science to support your claims, you act like a jerk as if that will make you seem more credible. You really are denier. You not only deny global warming, science and the rights of other people to make up their minds without your lies, but you deny any kind of civility in a discussion on an open forum. Tell me, do you make this kind of example for your children? Do you act this way in front of your parents? What an ass. And, your argument reflect that in you.

You make a bunch of senseless claims about the Antarctic ice without any supporting evidence. Well how about this for supporting evidence:

a, Mass anomalies observed by GRACE (January 2003–September 2012)
for Greenland (red) and Antarctica (blue; arbitrarily vertically
shifted for clarity). b, RACMO2 SMB, illustrating interannual variability (note the different scale for Antarctica). c, Estimated trend in the GRACE time series as function of record length since the start of the observations. For example, at x=6, trends in the six-year window for January 2003–December 2008 are shown for Greenland (red) and Antarctica (blue). d, As in c, but for accelerations; for explanation on error bars (95% range), see Supplementary Information. SMB, surface mass balance. Source: Nature GeoScience

There are plenty more, but this is a good one. Figure a shows the mass balance for Greenland (red) and Antarctica (blue) for the period January 2003 - September 2012. You can easily see the total mass has decreased in both ice sheets during that time span. For Antarctica, there was a loss of about 1000 gigatons. That comes out to about 100 gigatons of ice loss per year. I'm not sure you can understand what that means, so I'll translate it. A gigaton is 1 billion tons. So, Antarctica is losing 100 billion tons of ice every year. In fact, a study by NASA and the ESA shows that loss rate is accelerating.

As for CO2 warming the planet, it has most certainly been proved and the only ones that don't accept that evidence are deniers that reject any science that doesn't agree with their preconceived conclusion. If you are not intelligent enough to find that proof yourself, I suggest you check out several of the challenge submissions that have to do with the composition of the atmosphere and CO2 effects. You offered no science or logical argument there, just another senseless personal attack, so I don't need to deal with that issue any further.

Let's look at these scientific papers you referenced. You threw them out there without any kind of claim about how they supported any kind of logical argument you might make. At this point in your submission, you still have not made any scientific claims, just personal attacks, so I am not sure what your point is. But, let's look at these papers and see what they have to say.

[1] Previous studies have shown strong
contrasting trends in annual sea ice duration and in monthly sea ice
concentration in two regions of the Southern Ocean: decreases in the
western Antarctic Peninsula/southern Bellingshausen Sea (wAP/sBS) region
and increases in the western Ross Sea (wRS) region. To better
understand the evolution of these regional sea ice trends, we utilize
the full temporal (quasi-daily) resolution of satellite-derived sea ice
data to track spatially the annual ice edge advance and retreat from
1979 to 2004. These newly analyzed data reveal that sea ice is
retreating 31 ± 10 days earlier and advancing 54 ± 9 days later in the
wAP/sBS region (i.e., total change over 1979–2004), whereas in the wRS
region, sea ice is retreating 29 ± 6 days later and advancing 31 ± 6
days earlier. Changes in the wAP/sBS and wRS regions, particularly as
observed during sea ice advance, occurred in association with decadal
changes in the mean state of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM; negative in
the 1980s and positive in the 1990s) and the high-latitude response to
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In general, the high-latitude
ice-atmosphere response to ENSO was strongest when -SAM was coincident
with El Niño and when +SAM was coincident with La Niña, particularly in
the wAP/sBS region. In total, there were 7 of 11 -SAMs between 1980 and
1990 and the 7 of 10 +SAMs between 1991 and 2000 that were associated
with consistent decadal sea ice changes in the wAP/sBS and wRS regions,
respectively. Elsewhere, ENSO/SAM-related sea ice changes were not as
consistent over time (e.g., western Weddell, Amundsen, and eastern Ross
Sea region), or variability in general was high (e.g., central/eastern
Weddell and along East Antarctica).

What are they saying here?

Very simply, they are saying the different parts of the Antarctic sea ice is melting and freezing at different times of the year and this change appears to be linked to El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

What is relevant to any argument here? ENSO affects the sea ice around Antarctica. So what? This is important information and stuff we need to know, but it has no bearing on the reality of man made global warming, one way or the other. This information would not impact either scenario.

So, you submitted an irrelevant scientific paper to try and sound intelligent. It didn't work. Maybe you'll do better with the next one.

The
Antarctic Peninsula region is undergoing rapid change: a warming in
winter of almost 6 °C since 1950, the loss of six ice shelves, the
retreat of 87% of the marine glaciers, and decreases in winter sea-ice
duration. Concurrently, there is evidence of ecosystem change along the
western Antarctic Peninsula (wAP). Since the life histories of most
polar marine species are synchronized with the seasonal cycle of sea
ice, we assess how the seasonal sea-ice cycle is changing in the wAP
region. Four new metrics of seasonal sea-ice variability were extracted
from spatial maps of satellite derived daily sea-ice concentration: (a)
day of advance, (b) day of retreat, (c) the total number of sea-ice days
(between day of advance and retreat), and (d) the percent time sea-ice
was present (or sea-ice persistence). The spatio-temporal variability
describes distinct on-to-offshore and alongshore differences in
ice–ocean marine habitats, characterized overall by a longer sea-ice
season in coastal regions (6.8–7.9 months) versus a shorter sea-ice
season over the shelf (4.1–5.3 months), with on-to-offshore differences
increasing south-to-north. Large perturbations in the seasonality of the
marine habitat occur in association with ENSO and Southern Annular Mode
(SAM) variability. The local atmospheric response to these climate
modes is largely a strengthening of the meridional winds during
spring-to-autumn, which in turn affect the timing of the sea-ice retreat
and subsequent advance. These perturbations are embedded in overall
trends towards a later sea-ice advance, earlier retreat and consequently
shorter sea-ice season, the impacts of which are expected to affect
ecosystem functionality in the wAP region. A suite of
ocean–atmosphere–ice interactions are described that are consistent with
the amplified warming in late autumn, early winter.

What are they saying?

The Antarctica Peninsula is a long peninsula that extends from the main continental body and projects towards South America. This paper says this peninsula has gotten 6 degrees C warmer since 1950 and has lost 87% of its land ice. They then discuss how they analyze this situation in the paper and give details on what they examine.

At least you referenced a paper that was relevant this time, but it was relevant to showing AGW is real. The AP is getting warmer and is losing its ice. How can this help any argument you wish to make that AGW is not real? It certainly doesn't help make you look more intelligent or to make you more credible in your rants and personal attacks. You are not doing very well. Two scientific papers and neither one helps you.

Summer near-surface temperatures over the northeast coast of the
Antarctic Peninsula have increased by more than 2°C over the past 40
years, a temperature increase 3 times greater than that on the northwest
coast. Recent analysis has shown a strong correlation between this
striking warming trend and significant change in the summer Southern
Hemisphere annular mode (SAM), which has resulted in greatly increased
summer westerlies across the northern peninsula. It has been proposed
that the strengthening westerlies have resulted in increased vertical
deflection of relatively warm maritime air over the northern peninsula,
contributing significantly to the observed warming and the recent
collapse of northern sections of the Larsen Ice Shelf. In this study,
laboratory and numerical modeling of airflow incident to the peninsula
are employed to further understand this mechanism. It is shown that the
effect of the strengthening westerlies has led to a distinct transition
from a “blocked” regime to a “flow-over” regime, that is, confirmation
of the proposed warming mechanism. The blocked regime is dominated by
flow stagnation upstream (i.e., little vertical deflection) and
consequent lateral deflection of flow along the western side of the
peninsula. The flow-over regime is dominated by vertical deflection of
mid/upper-level air over the peninsula, with strong downslope winds
following closely to the leeward slope transporting this air (which
warms adiabatically as it descends) to the near-surface of the northeast
peninsula. The strong rotation typical of high latitudes considerably
increases the flow over the peninsula, particularly strengthening it
over the southern side (verified by aircraft measurements), suggesting
that the warming trend is not solely confined to the northeast.
Globally, flow regime transitions such as this may be responsible for
other local climate variations.

What are they saying?

They are saying that the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced warming of 2 degrees C over the last 40 years and that warming rate has been three times warmer than the northwest coast of the main body of the continent. They attribute this to changes in the airflow currents.

Oops! Third time wasn't a charm!

Did you even bother reading these papers, or did you just grab the papers to make you look smart? If so, it really didn't work. Once again, you have shown that Antarctica, and the AP in particular, are warming. How does this help any argument you could make or justify your personal attacks?

This graph clearly shows the average temperature in Antarctica has been going up. There is variation from year-to-year, but that is normal and expected. Look at the long-term trend (the dotted line) to show how the average temperature is going up.

The O'Donnell et al. paper refuted the Steig et al. paper and showed that warming in Antarctica is mostly concentrated in the peninsula area. There are two major things to take from this.

First, the peninsula actually projects out beyond the circumpolar currents in the atmosphere and ocean as well as the ozone hole, so it is not in the isolated environment the rest of the continent is.The fact that the part of the continent that is not located within the isolated environment is experiencing the greatest amount of change in the southern hemisphere illustrates the point that the continent is, in fact, isolated and is a special case, not evidence what global warming is not occurring. (See the above temperature plot, anyway.)

The second major point of this paper is that it refutes a paper that the deniers hated, namely the Steig et al. paper that showed more widespread warming than previously claimed.

So, what basically amounts to a paper supporting the denier side of the argument refutes any claim that it is not getting warmer in Antarctica. It also refutes any claim that the environment of the Antarctica Peninsula is not different than the environment of the main body of the continent.

I am still not sure what your argument is, but you state:

3) Finally the warmth along the peninsula has been repeatedly documented
to
be caused when winds inhibited regional sea ice growth and allowed
greater ventilation of subsurface heat on the western peninsula in the
winter and more foehn storms causing ad
iabatic heating on the eastern side in the summer.

All you are saying here is that wind currents have changed and that is what is causing the changing environment on the AP. But, you never address the question - what is causing the wind currents to change? Currents in the ocean and atmosphere don't just simply change. There must be a cause. You never even address that issue.

The climate of the western shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) is
undergoing a transition from a cold-dry polar-type climate
to a warm-humid sub-Antarctic–type climate.
Using three decades of satellite and field data, we document that ocean
biological
productivity, inferred from chlorophyll a
concentration (Chl a), has significantly changed along the WAP shelf.
Summertime
surface Chl a (summer integrated Chl a ∼63% of
annually integrated Chl a) declined by 12% along the WAP over the past
30 years,
with the largest decreases equatorward of 63°S
and with substantial increases in Chl a occurring farther south. The
latitudinal
variation in Chl a trends reflects shifting
patterns of ice cover, cloud formation, and windiness affecting
water-column mixing.
Regional changes in phytoplankton coincide with
observed changes in krill (Euphausia superba) and penguin populations.

You then conclude your rant by saying:

I suggest you spend less time hurling insults and start
reading the scientific literature to get a more well rounded perspective.

So, let's recap. You never proposed any argument to prove man made global warming is not real. What you did do is provide a series of statements that were either irrelevant, wrong, or even supportive of AGW. You then mixed all of those misstatements in with a long barrage of personal attacks as if that was somehow suppose to make you sound more credible and intelligent (it didn't).

You did not provide any scientific argument, and you did not provide any scientific evidence, to support any claim that man made global warming is not real.

So, in conclusion I can easily state you did not prove man made global warming is not real. But, don't despair, you did prove you are an ass.